Over at his Antipope diary, SF writer Charlie Stross writes about the monetization paradox with regards to the Internet and publishing. He starts with examples from the newspaper industry and the overriding importance of ad revenue to their business model, then goes on to discuss how bean-counter cost-cutting of the human resources (writers and editors) may yield some very short-term benefits but is counter-productive and even disastrous in the long run.
But the more interesting part of the post (for me, at least) is what Charlie has to say about Google. It’s a rather long post (and well worth the read, I hope you check it out), but here’s the salient point:
Paper books are going to be around for a long time to come, but I’m betting on the ebook cannibalizing the mass-market paperback by 2020 at the latest — which is where half the paper book revenue stream comes from. Hardcovers pay much better than paperbacks, but far fewer people are willing to pay for them. Paperbacks pay the author roughly 7-10% of the cover price of a £7 or $8 book. But the ebook shift is potentially catastrophic: ebook royalties are typically in the 15-30% range, but the cost of e-goods in general is being deflated towards the $1.99 price point by the App Store model pushed by Apple and their competitors. Amazon aren’t helping either — increasing the publisher’s cut sounds good, until you realize that the proposed $9.99 cap on ebooks replaces the high-end $24 hardcover. Not only does it mean less royalties for the authors, it means less money for the publishers — or, more importantly, their marketing divisions.
I’m not sure what to think about all of this. Part of it scares the hell out of me, since I want to trend toward being a full-time writer, not have that option made completely unavailable because of price deflation of the very product I work so hard to create.
There are some very interesting replies to Charlie’s post — I encourage you to at least skim through them (there are a lot). There is discussion about a return to patronage (not gonna happen, the world has moved on); a lot of talk about ransomware, in which only a portion of a work is initially published online with the remainder withheld until some preset minimum subscriber payment threshold is met. I don’t think that’s viable either, since it’s predicated on an almost antagonistic relationship to one’s audience. Some of the bigger-name authors might get away with it for a few books, but even readers of the Stephen Kings and Dan Browns of the world would tire after a while of what is essentially a gimmick.
The crux of the question is what happens to publishers? If they’re no longer producing a physical object (which is where the bulk of the costs of a book are loaded), what, exactly, are they providing? Editing services? “Respectability” or “authenticity” for their stable of writers? (In other words, a way for an audience to separate a professional writer from an amateur. The thinking here is that pros would still be vetted by the “traditional” publishing houses so that the buying public can separate professional writing from stuff that is strictly self-published.*) Publishers can also provide marketing for writers, ways to promote them through channels that most writers do not have access to. That’s another important point that Charlie makes in his post — most writers are terrible marketers, and don’t have the time, resources, and skill to pull it off.
If mass market paperbacks disappear and the 8% I was getting as a royalty on a $7.99 cover price suddenly becomes 15% on $1.99 iTunes app or download from Amazon, I’m in trouble unless my volume goes up significantly. Will it, if my books are that much cheaper and as easy to get as a download to a Kindle or iPhone? Impossible to say, but I would hate to bet my career on that assumption. And what about the publishers? Can they survive on margins even lower than they are now?
If publishers go the way of the dodo, that leaves places like Amazon.com as de facto publishers. Anyone who wants to upload their books to Amazon for sale (probably for a fee) can do so, and hope they find an audience. But is that something Amazon wants to do? They love to squeeze the middelmen, but I’m not sure they want to cut them out completely and assume their place.
If everyone can be a writer then no one is really a “professional.” Writing a book becomes nothing more than a lengthy blog. Is there some value to be gained in having your work selected by an established publisher, in being vetted by organizations that the public at large views as the gateway to the professional market?
Publishing is going to change. It’s inevitable. I’m not afraid of the change as long as there is a way for me to continue being paid for my books (and, I hope, increasing my income with each successive work.)
But what will that new model look like? How will we monetize ebooks in a way so that writers and publishers both can survive? Can it even be done? If it can, what might that model look like? Will some form of publishing on demand be a part of this brave new world? Will new ebook companies take the place of the New York behemoths?
I don’t know myself, but I’d love to hear what you think.
*Before anyone rides my ass about slamming self-published work, please realize this is based on how the world is right now, not as we would wish it to be with unicorns and rainbows and laser-wielding robots. And right now, self-published works are, by and large, simply not as good as works provided through traditional publishers.
